>>45498 >How would you fix the falling damage rules? What's wrong with them?

>>1421 a high level or even mid level barbarian can survive a fall from near-earth orbit and then stand up and kill 20 or 30 orcs without issue

>>1437 So? A colossal dragon jumping on a character to crush him only deals 4d8+STR, yet hitting the ground at terminal velocity deals 20d6. Both these things are enough to instantly merc a mid level wizard, let alone the average commoner. However, wizard's gimmick is spells. A barbarian's is the d12 hd and con bonus from rage. What you're saying isn't a matter of low damage from falling, it's that Barbarians have huge amounts of survivability (by design).

>>1421 It's not calibrated well for different creature sizes other than medium. Here's my adjustment: >Size Fine (less than 3") Fortitude vs DC 5 +1*each 10ft (cap at 200ft) or dmg 1d6-1 (min no damage); >Size Fine (3" or more) Falling damage *1/10 >Size Diminutive Falling damage *1/5 >Size Tiny Falling damage *1/2 >Size Small/Medium Falling damage *1 >Size Large Falling damage *1.5 >Size Huge Falling Damage *2 Ignore the first 10ft >Size Gargantuan Falling damage *3 Ignore the first 20ft >Size Colossal Falling damage *4 Ignore the first 30ft

>>1437 In my experience 3.5e in general breaks down after 12th level...at least on my table, but I get it >>1451 Imma write this down, thank you!

>>1451 I understand the height threshold due to tallness and how smaller creatures would take less due to better wind resistance, but why the much higher multiplier for bigger things? Are you trying to invoke square cube law? At a certain size and density, a much larger creature is going to do a lot more to the surface of the earth than it will to them.

>>1455 >why the much higher multiplier for bigger things? Are you trying to invoke square cube law? That's the general idea but i'm trying to prioritize gameability, if you want to go more towards the simulationist route use the size carry capacity multipliers to the falling damage result. >At a certain size and density, a much larger creature is going to do a lot more to the surface of the earth than it will to them. Yes i use the creature size + its (relative to it's size on a grid) reach to infer the area affected and apply the standard rule for calculating the falling object damage, which already takes into consideration mass.

>>1457 You misunderstand. For the same principle the lower weight and smaller size of a fine creature can be slowed more by the density and relatively larger 'granularity' of air, a larger and heavier creature will be slowed less by that of dirt it lands in. As it falls faster because wind resistance affects it less, the ground would impact it less for the same reason. TL;DR: A big and heavy enough creature would land in earth like we would water.

>>1486 Fair, so would be better to keep the adjustment only for smaller sizes?

What are the best prestige classes for fighters? Like if I am fighter level 5, what prestige classes are actually worth building toward? No caster options.

>>1537 Depends. Let's start. What weapon do you plan to use?

>>1537 that depends what you want to do, really,

>>1556 >>1570 Honestly anything that is a good strategy. But I'd say anything that helps a "meta" fighter build, or just gives you innately strong options that will make you better off than if you just kept taking fighter levels. Like disciple of dispater seems to be pretty OP if it was allowed and you were willing to use a falchion.

>>1575 Blessed of Gruumsh (with a dip in exotic weapon master for the flurry) should be great, bonus points if you can pounce, one way or another for another style, ashworm dragoons are rad as fuck

>>1486 >>1492 nah, a larger creature has a mass in proportion to the cube of its size, and an impact surface in proportion to the square napkin calculation, based on a spherical giant, if he weights 4 ton and smashes on a 15' square, he takes more damage than a spherical ogre weighting 1 ton and smashing on a 10' square, because of the higher ratio of mass to surface on impact, at the same speed if falling from the same height it's physically logical that a larger creature takes more HP damage than a smaller creature, this even happens irl when small children have a chance to survive falls that would kill an adult >>1486 >TL;DR: A big and heavy enough creature would land in earth like we would water. if it's hard and dense enough to plunge through its an impact crater, maybe, but that means this beast is high enough level and has enough HPs to shrug falling from orbit, that's not the general case of the critters you encounter in D&D on a similar principle, in a homebrew system derived in small part from d&d I played decades ago, there were limits to the damage small pixies could recieve from trolls trying to play tree trunks baseball with them: it requires very little kinetic energy to accelerate a pixie to the speed of a tree trunk, because the momentum transfer is extremely small. This soaking effect disappears of course if the pixie can't be accelerated, because it got smashed gorily on a rock, for instance

>>1718 how about adjusting the fall damage dice using your size modifier? that way, a rat would be rolling 1d3 and a bulette 2d6 instead of the regular 1d6 in the calculations

>>1910 that's very doable, in fact, the physics of fall damage is fundamentally the same principle as the damage from natural weapons determined by size you could almost lift it directly from there and it would feel quite natural

>>1437 I think we can all agree that is fucking awesome.

>>1486 That's a question of density, not size.

>>1419 would you consider a feat that gives you an animal companion (using a reduced list, probably things on par with a riding dog) at a druid level equal to half your CL to be broken, or not worth it?

>>3175 Doesn't the ranger animal companion progression work this way? I think may be viable, i would probably balance it as a standalone feat using the "Leadership" one scaling as reference.

>>3176 yes, it's pretty similar to a ranger's so there's a slight overlap technically it's even a bit stronger since it's tied to your CL, so it will scale with multiclassing without issues. the issue with Leadership is that it's arguably one of the strongest feats in the game, so using that as a base for balance might be a bit over the top

>>3177 Are you going to make it a feat that could be selected multiple times (each new pick is an extra animal companion)? It would make sense if you keep rangers and druids availabe. Speaking about leadership i was thinking picrel regarding multiple selections, you apply a -2 (each time to the new pick) to your druid level in order to determine the next animal companion abilities.

>>3215 oh, i see what you mean now! honestly, i didn't think about it, i'd say the investment of a feat is enough of a penalty as it is, but some guy showing up with 8 hounds of half his CL (or a lot more with chaos shuffle) might be an hilarious issue

>>3215 >>3235 thinking about it, having an handle animal rank requirement that gets higher each time you want to take the feat again might solve this issue

>>1419 >How would you fix the falling damage rules?

>>3270 Cool, i can work with this one. Thanks anon

>>3270 Landing on water from 50ft is like hitting solid rock, it should just be considered "soft".

>>3296 maybe have a swim check for diving? a perfect dive should solve or at least heavily mitigate this issue

How would you guys compare this custom spell to Battletide? >https://rentry.org/niqx6cbw There's two (A) options under Battle Cadence because I haven't decided which of the two I'll keep. I'm leaning towards the slightly better but still pretty bad Spiritual Weapon effect, simply because it's cooler, and it stacks with hastes too so there's that. Basically, I want this version to be thematic while not being actually stronger than Battletide, hence the nerfed speed and free quicken. Copying the question from 4chan in the off chance some of you are here exclusively.

>>3175 Wild Cohort from the 18th of November 2003 "Wild Life" web article does almost this: >https://web.archive.org/web/20161101073942/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a

>>3325 interesting

Do you guys have one or more favorite Spells to use with the Channel Spell feature from Ordained Champion? So far I've only used it to Channel Lava Missiles (pretty dope spell), and Shivering Touch, Lesser. All levels are valid. I'm compiling a list.

>>3546 haven't played an OC yet, but i'd say hold person might be a good option, that lets you almost completely disable an opponent in a turn check with your DM how he'd interpret Silence working with channeling, if it affects only the enemy you hit and doesn't create a zone, that might be a great way to disable a spellcaster, Bestow Curse will probably be your best friend if you're not opposed to it, as it can do some beautifully nasty things.

>>3563 >Bestow Curse That's a really good one. While cursing his enemies is not really my character's MO. >hold person Another good pick. >Silence >hold person I always forget that that's part of the class feature turning AOE into single target effects. Clever. I like it. Guess I'll keep at least one use of Silence and one use of Hold Person prepared from now on and add Bestow Curse to my list.

looking at it, one VERY interesting thing in the wording of channel spell, is that, while it can only be done on a melee weapon, it discharges on the next successful hit, so by using a melee thrown weapon, you could (if i'm not wrong) use Touch spells at range (assuming you hit)

>>3602 That's a great find. My character does uses his weapon as an improvised thrown weapon from time to time, what's with the Crystal of Return, Lesser. I love that thing. Channeling Silence onto the weapon then Chucking it at a spellcasting enemy could become a standard maneuver.

>autismo rant Is it weird that i like 3.5e for it's DM side completeness but i despise it for the player side schizophrenic abundance of options? Like, the only way i can enjoy DMing 3.5e is by being anal in laying down what's available for the players without leaving any leeway for them in character design. I also hate "blow-load big chongus damage numbers!!!" abilities in general if there's not significant setbacks and nuance in them, for example one of the main reason i dislike the ToB is because of the "per encounter" availability of effects rather than "per day" (i still allow it though, because at least broadens the tactical picks for martials), same deal with spells, for example i find damage spells like "fireball" to be acceptable because of the setback (an area effect of dedicated damage type that doesn't allow for differentiation between allies and foes) compared to something like "magic missile" (versatile damage type, can be concentrated or spread on multiple targets, autohit, no save). As a rule of thumb i prefer for my player to have abilities that can have a potential utility that may work even out of combat with a modicum of creativity and situational occurrences but 3.5e skews for the most part players choices towards tactical effectiveness optimization with little to no leeway for lateral thinking that isn't during the character design process (as in you make a hammer and now the world is only composed of nails). At best it's like having two types of games: out-of-combat thespian fantasy land interaction and specialty/skirmish moments where suddenly all sort of abilities pop-out to be then forgotten as soon the scenario ends. >inb4 play other games I do, i just would like to enjoy 3.5e more as GM without castrating my players (or conversely myself) because, at the end of the day, i still love the damn thing.

>>3628 That's fair. While I don't personally get why >(you) despise it for the player side schizophrenic abundance of options Most of those are more than valid complaints for the dude conducting the game.

>>3630 I despise the "schizophrenic" abundance of player options because of my (autistic) need for "cohesion" in my games. Take for example the "knight" archetype, in how many ways you can have a knight in-world using the game options? It may be a npc warrior or noble with ranks and feats in riding, it may be a fighter with the very same ranks and feats, it may be a paladin or the late "knight" class, etc... and all this without considering prestige classes. At the end is a non-issue per se (you can either ignore definitions by just playing the archetype or making a curated list of available option for said archetype for the specific game), just one that make me sigh out of general frustration.

>>3631 >cohesion Ah. That I get. I do like having al the options with the option to funnel them down based on theme or whatever, but I get that.

What's the point of "Swift Actions"? Can i just treat them as Free Actions and ignore whatever autistic distinction they need for being considered as separate? The action economy is already autistic and clunky as it is.

>>3683 So that it interacts with other swift actions and immediate actions. I don't mind them at all. I', often picking and choosing my actions in combat so that I can make use of both free actions and swift/immediate actions. My character has smite, law devotion, his armor's blurry enhancement, his belt of battle, and a couple of swift and immediate action spells vying for the spot, for example.

>>3683 The point is you only get 1 swift action per turn. Otherwise things like swift action spellcasting could result in 20 spells in one turn and GG.

>>3683 >clunky it's just fine, bruh. consider swift/immediate actions as a "bonus" you can activate

>>3689 >dragon wildshape druid throwing a dozen quickened spells a round with Tome Dragon's free metamagic stop, i can only get so hard.